Harris vs Trump;

[swansont]

On 9/19/2024 at 1:43 PM, swansont said:

The national teamsters union. A lot of locals have endorsed Harris.

https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2024/09/18/harris-local-teamsters-2024-trump

 

“Teamsters Against Trump Knocks Over 40,000 Doors of Swing-State Union Members for Harris-Walz”

https://movement.vote/blog/teamsters-against-trump-knocks-over-40000-doors-of-swing-state-union-members-for-harris-walz/

[MSC]

15 hours ago, TheVat said:

Reading The Power of the Powerless, by Vaclav Havel, came across this bit.

"Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them. As the repository of something suprapersonal and objective, it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from themselves."

https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/the-power-of-the-powerless-vaclav-havel-2011-12-23

 

 

Not to disagree with all of it, but the first part offers a specious way of defining ideology as illusionary, when that sort of thought itself has an ism attached to it and so falls under it's own definition. A definition which negates the very real power ideology has in motivating human behavior to have a tangible impact upon the physical world. The impact of a specific ideology can extend outside of ideology depending on what the ideology in question qualitatively is. In a way like, but not the same as, software being run in a network of computers. Only in our case, different computers reinterpreting the same software. 

Using this analogy further; pro-scientific ideologies or pro-democratic ones, can be thought of as shared software across multiple people, in ways beneficial to human existence that could negate some of the quotes later criticisms. 

Example; I believe in science, I'm running that software, evidence suggests therapy is good for me, therefore I don't have to deceive my conscious by concealing my true position on anything because I can share it with a therapist, even if the thought "Therapy is a crock of shit" ever comes into my mind. Like I said earlier, the impact of ideology extends outside of ideology. To shortly sum up; depends on which ideology you're talking about. Cult or not? Beneficial, benign, malignant? Which ideologies specifically did he give as examples? 

Got a day off tomorrow to have more of a read, these are just first thoughts only on what was shared, not the text in full context. 

 

 

[TheVat]

21 hours ago, MSC said:

Not to disagree with all of it, but the first part offers a specious way of defining ideology as illusionary, when that sort of thought itself has an ism attached to it and so falls under it's own definition. A definition which negates the very real power ideology has in motivating human behavior to have a tangible impact upon the physical world.

My guess is Havel is pointing his pen at ideology of the type that gaslights, e.g. Stalinism, Natl Socialism, Trumpism, etc.  I have to read further, but it seems like he's saying many people aren't finding real living philosophies in the slogans and aphorisms they're hearing.  When he speaks of their conscience being deceived, it's likely he is not targeting, say, civil rights ideology or the human rights principles of liberal democracy generally.  I will try to return to this - things be busy in the vat today.

[MSC]

10 hours ago, TheVat said:

My guess is Havel is pointing his pen at ideology of the type that gaslights, e.g. Stalinism, Natl Socialism, Trumpism, etc.  I have to read further, but it seems like he's saying many people aren't finding real living philosophies in the slogans and aphorisms they're hearing.  When he speaks of their conscience being deceived, it's likely he is not targeting, say, civil rights ideology or the human rights principles of liberal democracy generally.  I will try to return to this - things be busy in the vat today.

That makes sense; I did want to give it the benefit of the doubt and read it more charitably but also kind of slid into almost OT territory but your point at Including the quote is definitely relevant to Trumpism. 

[toucana]

An article published yesterday by The New Republic (TNR) discusses at some length the malign influence of so called ‘polls’ released by right leaning US firms in the last few weeks, which in a number of cases appear to be openly partisan attempts to shift the aggregate polls in favour of Trump, and to create a false illusion of momentum trending in favour of MAGA

https://newrepublic.com/article/187425/gop-polls-rigging-averages-trump

What is happening is that the psephological marketplace is being flooded with new polls from right-wing fly-by-night operators, and this data is then being included into national polling averages by such aggregators as FiveThirtyEight and The New York Times - among others. The latter adamantly deny that GOP polls are seriously harming their averages and forecasts - but a better question would be - Why is this garbage being included by aggregators in the first place ?

The aggregators say that they apply negative weightings to polls which are thought to be systematically biased to ensure they have less influence than high-quality polls with better standards of empirical accuracy and more methodological transparency. Critics are sceptical about this - and with reason.They point out that while many of the distortions introduced into the averages by these skewed MAGA leaning polls may be statistically insignificant -  e.g.  a ‘lead’ of 0.4% -  they are being actively exploited for psychological propaganda effect by social media entities such as X/Twitter who will claim that Trump is “Winning the state”,  and then even more irresponsibly assign electoral college votes based on such narrow leads to ramp up partisan claims that ’Trump is now winning’ - not just even leading, but winning the election - when the underlying data says nothing of the sort.

Earlier today I read a report on Sky News whose headline uncritically claimed that “Trump is now the bookies favourite”

https://news.sky.com/story/us-election-donald-trump-kamala-harris-democrat-republican-polls-skynews-live-latest-13209921

The reality (as previously noted) is that these claims derive entirely from online betting markets like Betfair and Polymarket which are being heavily manipulated by conservative MAGA investors who are sinking up to $14 million dollars a time into these forums - precisely to generate headlines of this sort.

 

[Phi for All]

On 10/19/2024 at 9:01 AM, iNow said:

They’ve also memory-holed the daily chaos, and the lies about Covid, the way he abandoned allies and encouraged racial hatred and is basically only their to enrich himself and his family. 

Speaking of COVID-19, let's not forget that in 2024 we're still losing an in(s)ane amount of people every day to the virus: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm 

The majority of those deaths (pneumonia & influenza included) are from lack of vaccination, and the majority of those are supporters of TFG. Add in the folks that would have voted Republican if their red state representatives had cared enough to fund FEMA to help them survive a disaster, and it seems TFG has pretty effectively decimated his own ranks. You aren't supposed to vote if you're dead.

 

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Speaking of COVID-19, let's not forget that in 2024 we're still losing an in(s)ane amount of people every day to the virus: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm 

The majority of those deaths (pneumonia & influenza included) are from lack of vaccination, and the majority of those are supporters of TFG. Add in the folks that would have voted Republican if their red state representatives had cared enough to fund FEMA to help them survive a disaster, and it seems TFG has pretty effectively decimated his own ranks. You aren't supposed to vote if you're dead.

 

Unfortunately that is nothing new as such. IIRC the estimated annual deaths from influenza were in the order from 20-50k. Yet vaccination rates have remained abysmal throughout. At the time I though that the sudden and massive impact of COVID-19 would shake the status quo. Unfortunately, the result was a further decline in vaccination uptake.

And it is not only an US issue. Canada had lower vaccination rates to begin with and is trending the same. Working in public health seems to be as much fun as working on global warming, I guess.

[Phi for All]

26 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Unfortunately that is nothing new as such. IIRC the estimated annual deaths from influenza were in the order from 20-50k. Yet vaccination rates have remained abysmal throughout. At the time I though that the sudden and massive impact of COVID-19 would shake the status quo. Unfortunately, the result was a further decline in vaccination uptake.

And it is not only an US issue. Canada had lower vaccination rates to begin with and is trending the same. Working in public health seems to be as much fun as working on global warming, I guess.

I'm focusing on the increased rate of death among Republicans after the vaccine became available: https://www.npr.org/2023/07/25/1189939229/covid-deaths-democrats-republicans-gap-study

Quote

Researchers from Yale University who studied the pandemic's effects on those two states say that from the pandemic's start in March 2020 through December 2021, "excess mortality was significantly higher for Republican voters than Democratic voters after COVID-19 vaccines were available to all adults, but not before."

And while the attributable deaths keep going down, it's still primarily affecting those who refuse the vaccine, and those are primarily folks who support TFG. His denial has been costing him voters for several years now.

[swansont]

New NYT/Siena poll has the race tied, but there’s this (posted on bluesky)

Not only ignoring recent history but also the post-Dobbs voter registration surge

[CharonY]

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I'm focusing on the increased rate of death among Republicans after the vaccine became available: https://www.npr.org/2023/07/25/1189939229/covid-deaths-democrats-republicans-gap-study

Yeah, it did definitely amplify that. But I caution against a narrative that only Reps are vulnerable against misinformation. They are just at a higher rate. The baseline is still pretty sad and the shock of a the pandemic did little to change that.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 10/25/2024 at 5:48 PM, swansont said:

New NYT/Siena poll has the race tied, but there’s this (posted on bluesky)

Not only ignoring recent history but also the post-Dobbs voter registration surge

One might expect that 18-29 women demographic to be even higher this time around, given women's reproductive rights being a significant issue.

Edited October 28 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

Harris is clearly making a play for paleo-Republicans and Independent voters. Trump, however, is making a play for voters who normally don't vote, specifically males with misogynistic and racist tendencies.

I'm unsure (and uncomfortable) that the middle of the road never-Trumper numbers being sought after by Harris et.al will be enough to counterbalance the "let's burn the whole effing thing down" voters sought after by Trump et.al. 

[TheVat]

33 minutes ago, iNow said:

Harris is clearly making a play for paleo-Republicans and Independent voters. Trump, however, is making a play for voters who normally don't vote, specifically males with misogynistic and racist tendencies.

If males with misogynistic and racist tendencies don't vote, how did we get Trump in 2016?  

[J.C.MacSwell]

46 minutes ago, TheVat said:

If males with misogynistic and racist tendencies don't vote, how did we get Trump in 2016?  

At the time he was more a symptom stemming from the radical left, which allowed at least some of his blowhard proclamations to seem reasonable by comparison...

He had always been an a-hole, but hadn't outed himself as a dangerous insurrectionist.

[MigL]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

how did we get Trump in 2016? 

People who pay attention to the details, and think a little, didn't show up to vote, and a lot of them didn't think highly of the alternative either.

People have to realize, especially young people and women, if you don't vote you get the Government old white men deserve.

Get your ass out to vote, or it'll happen again.
( preaching to the choir, I know )

[J.C.MacSwell]

On topic...with much of the GOP going around claiming Trump doesn't really mean what he says...surely Trump himself will need to explain some of the stuff said on his behalf at yesterdays rally:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/28/fact-check-donald-trumps-madison-square-garden-rally-in-new-york-city

(the outright racial insults...not the more of the same run-of-the-mill lies)

Edited October 28 by J.C.MacSwell

[CharonY]

23 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

At the time he was more a symptom stemming from the radical left, which allowed at least some of his blowhard proclamations to seem reasonable by comparison...

I would say he was a symptom of prevalent racism, and folks being afraid that the Overton window has shifted so far that being PC now applied to subtle and systemic racism as well (which we can see in the rejection of CRT), which is a bridge too far.

15 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

(the outright racial insults...not the more of the same run-of-the-mill lies)

Those were already present in 2016 with his rapists comments. It wasn't subtle then, either. It just has become more blunt, but why should it make a difference once we are so far down the hole?

[J.C.MacSwell]

24 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I would say he was a symptom of prevalent racism, and folks being afraid that the Overton window has shifted so far that being PC now applied to subtle and systemic racism as well (which we can see in the rejection of CRT), which is a bridge too far.

 

I'm sure that is also true.

24 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Those were already present in 2016 with his rapists comments. It wasn't subtle then, either. It just has become more blunt, but why should it make a difference once we are so far down the hole?

As obvious as it might be to you, more blunt will surely make it harder for his GOP cohorts to liesplain away the more outrageous statements, such as Tony Hinchcliffe's "jokes".

To their credit, some in the GOP condemn his remarks...too bad it needs to be taken to that level before they respond.

Edited October 28 by J.C.MacSwell

[CharonY]

8 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

As obvious as it might be to you, more blunt will surely make it harder for his GOP cohorts to liesplain away the more outrageous statements, such as Tony Hinchcliffe's "jokes".

Considering that they were able to explain away a coup attempt (which was universally condemned when everyone was afraid for their lives), I don't think that this bar is any higher, to be honest.

Maybe I am too cynical, but I don't think we can rely on certain standards anymore.

[swansont]

52 minutes ago, MigL said:

People who pay attention to the details, and think a little, didn't show up to vote, and a lot of them didn't think highly of the alternative either.

Or they voted for Jill Stein as a “protest” because it made them feel better

40 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Those were already present in 2016 with his rapists comments. It wasn't subtle then, either. It just has become more blunt, but why should it make a difference once we are so far down the hole?

Some (not all) in the media are finally calling it racism (vs controversial, or other lame labeling) which might wake some low-information voters up.

And Puerto Ricans living in states can vote, so this might shift a few votes.

[J.C.MacSwell]

16 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Considering that they were able to explain away a coup attempt (which was universally condemned when everyone was afraid for their lives), I don't think that this bar is any higher, to be honest.

Maybe I am too cynical, but I don't think we can rely on certain standards anymore.

No doubt, but in this case it's both recent and very easy to connect the dots.

Hinchcliffe is claiming it's just jokes, but he was warming up a crowd for Trump. I've not heard of anything to indicate Trump took exception to it, when he spoke at the rally afterwards or since

[CharonY]

52 minutes ago, swansont said:

Some (not all) in the media are finally calling it racism (vs controversial, or other lame labeling) which might wake some low-information voters up.

One can only hope. Though after Charlottesville and Jan 6. I am not sure whether I would get my hopes up.

52 minutes ago, swansont said:

And Puerto Ricans living in states can vote, so this might shift a few votes.

That feels like the most tangible element.

34 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No doubt, but in this case it's both recent and very easy to connect the dots.

Maybe there is some lingering recency effect. It is just hard for me to imagine that after all these years this is will suddenly penetrate folks' skulls. The shock effect is long gone.

 

That being said, silly as it may seem, it appears that policy plays at best a minor role and we are headed into ideology-driven politics.

Here, issues such as racism, misogyny, and views masculinity (pro and contra) may be key elements determining voting blocks more than ever before.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

If males with misogynistic and racist tendencies don't vote, how did we get Trump in 2016?  

They did vote in 2016, just a smaller fraction of them. He's looking to significantly expand the footprint of those doing so this year. 

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I don't think that this bar is any higher, to be honest.

Maybe I am too cynical, but I don't think we can rely on certain standards anymore.

Agreed. You're not cynical. You're paying attention. 

[CharonY]

29 minutes ago, iNow said:

They did vote in 2016, just a smaller fraction of them. He's looking to significantly expand the footprint of those doing so this year. 

Agreed. You're not cynical. You're paying attention. 

There is also an interesting trend regarding minorities and how grievances can be used to balance each other out. Historically, minorities were sensitive to threats against them and such rhetoric is generally considered toxic for that voting block. However, the GOP has made inroads with e.g. Hispanic men. I don't think there is a clear consensus as to why, but some argue that there is an educational gender divide. Hispanic women are more likely to pursue higher education and Hispanic men are less likely to absorb traditional media, instead relying on their social network. Trump is popular in the working class, and some studies suggest that it is the projection of a (weird) form of masculinity, which is laced with more than a bit of misogyny. On the other hand, IIRC, the gender gap is narrower than in other voting blocs.

 

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

the GOP has made inroads with e.g. Hispanic men

The "manosphere" seems to apply here, too. It's a prominent grouping mechanism in this current election with toxic tones.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manosphere

Quote

The manosphere is a diverse collection of websites, blogs, and online forums promoting masculinity, misogyny, and opposition to feminism.

Communities within the manosphere include men's rights activists (MRAs), incels (involuntary celibates), Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), pick-up artists (PUA), and fathers' rights groups. While the specifics of each group's beliefs sometimes conflict, they are generally united in the belief that society is biased against men due to the influence of feminism, and that feminists promote misandry, or hatred of men. Acceptance of these ideas is described as "taking the red pill", a metaphor borrowed from the film The Matrix.

The manosphere overlaps with the far-right and alt-right communities. It has also been associated with online harassment and has been implicated in radicalizing men into misogynist beliefs and the glorification of violence against women. Some sources have associated manosphere-based radicalization with mass shootings motivated by misogyny.